tv Justice With Judge Jeanine FOX News January 18, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PST
philippines. you see the crowd from gathering the pontiff wrapping up a four-day visit to the country the trip focusing on the poor and those devastated by typhoon haiyan in 2013. pope francis will return. we'll take you back now to regularly scheduled programming. here's justice already in progress. word "islamic" from in front of extremists in white house talking points. we don't win by apologizing for americans who simply express their first amendment free speech right, and we don't win by allowing citizens who join radicalized groups to remain here in the united states. we don't win when we treat jihad as a law enforcement problem giving constitutional rights to terrorists. we don't win by dismantling intel programs that put undercover officers in mosques
in muslim areas. and we don't win by scheduling another conference. we don't win by leaving our border open. so how do we win? we win by cutting off funding to arab countries that support jihad. we win by cutting off funding to countries like turkey that line up their tanks to watch the killing of the kurds like they're at a drive-in movie. we win by forcing arab countries to duplicate egypt's refusal to tolerate islamic extremisextrem. we win when we stop talking politics. who's to blame, who started it, who's right, who's wrong, who's right, who's left? and we win when we start talking solutions. and we don't win through that hug diplomacy, and we certainly don't do it by showing up a week late with a guy with a guitar to sing "you've got a friend." they should stop talking friend
and start being a friend. and that's my open. tell me what you think on my facebook page or twitter at judge jeanine, #justiceopen. and fox news military analyst colonel david hunt joins me now. all right, colonel hunt. welcome. good to have you back. am i right or am i wrong? >> you're mostly right. i mean, you're not 100%. for example, on gitmo. >> uh-huh. >> the issue with gitmo is it's supposed to be a holding place. we can't keep people for 12 and 13 years. you have to try them. i have no problem bringing them here, trying them, executing them or letting them go. the recidivism rate had to do with the first 530 that were let go. i don't think gitmo is a cause for terrorism. we have to do a much better job when we capture these guys on the battlefield. >> when the president or the white house says gitmo is a reason a lot of these young people are radicalizing, you don't think it's a call for that extremi extremism, do you? >> it is. the problem with gitmo, we
didn't plan for the prisoners we had and wound up with gitmo and it's been a serious problem, but it's been massively politicized. >> are you saying they should have been released earlier? >> i'm saying we bring somebody in, we get the intel we need, we try them, execute them, let them go. i do not think we should hold people for 12 or 13 years. >> try them, execute them or let them go? >> in other words, if they're found not guilty. i have no problem bringing the united states. you prosecute people your whole life. great prosecuting, great jails, maximum security prisons. that's an example. i think gitmo has been politicized. >> okay. in terms of what's going on, okay, we stopped the war in afghanistan, okay? they're going right back to the taliban, to the caves, tribal stuff. >> afghanistan, we didn't win. just like iraq. we've been bombing, for example, iraq, for 26 years. two democratic presidents, and two republican presidents. it hasn't worked. what we've got in afghanistan is 10,000 guys are still there, 13 years of war that hasn't --
we've got to do more than just kill them. that's my only other issue with your opening. killing them, yes, is part of the war on terror. >> i didn't say just kill them. i gave you a whole bunch of reasons how we win the war. were you listening? >> only for a couple minutes. yes. but there's so much more to this, and long term. we have to pay attention to what just happened in africa, what just happened in pakistan. we have to -- it's not simply sending $8 million bombing isis in iraq. once that's done, now what? >> okay. when you say we have to pay attention to what's happening in pakistan, i guess the taliban killed all those kids and in northern nigeria, boko haram. when you say pay attention, what do you mean about that? >> can't be that we're concerned from the press standpoint of the nation that people are killed in paris, journalists. be focused on what's happening in pakistan and nigeria. this is a world war. >> are you suggesting that maybe we get involved in nigeria and fight them over there? what are you saying?
>> we have to absolutely. train the nigerians, do intelligence. the problem we found with afghanistan is if you don't deal with them, they are going to come here and the problem is it's not -- it's being treated as a military and intelligence solution only. and there's so much more we got to do. >> okay. >> much deeper. >> okay. and in addition to that, i mean, when you talk about intelligence, we're hearing less and less chatter obviously now, and, you know, but now we've got these lone cells and these sleeper cells. are americans in trouble? >> sure. if you're not winning the war on terror and you see what's happened in paris, you see the kid that just got arrested out of cleveland, yes, we saw what happened with the boston marathon. of course, the lone wolf is an issue. however, we've got great cops in new york and boston. we get most of them. not going to be perfect. but my issue is that we seem to be yelling a lot about which is more. kill them, we've done that for all these years. >> we can't win. why can't we win? >> we can win but we have to get other countries involved, muslim
clerics involved. >> let's talk about el sissi in egypt. >> great example. at the same time he did a great statement, the head of hezbollah condemned us. >> condemned what? >> condemned what happened in paris which is unheard of. >> right. >> so you've got a leader in the muslim world in egypt and the head of hezbollah condemning them. we have to push more for that and insist on it and countries like pakistan or qatar act in a duplicitous nature or saudi arabia, a whole bunch of others we could name, there has to be consequences. >> okay. i couldn't agree with you more. good to have you back, colonel hunt. thanks for being with us. and last week on this program, a guest made a serious factual error that we wrongly let stand unchallenged and uncorrected. the guest aserted the city of birmingham, england, is totally muslim and it's a place where non muslims don't go. both are incorrect. the most recent census data which is from 2011 indicates 22% of the population of birmingham identifies themselves as muslim.
also we could find no credible source that indicates birmingham is a so-called no-go zone. we deeply regret these error and apologize to the people of birmingham, our viewers and all offended. up next, he grew up in the west. he became radicalized. a former jihadi on the rise of terror sleeper cells around the globe. and vote in tonight's in instapoll. will our free speech suffer so we can say nothing negative about islam? facebook or tweet me
the president's proposal to raise $320 billion over the next 10 years would raise the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 28% for high earners. impose a fee on the largest financial firms, making it more costly to borrow heavily. and close the so-called trust fund loophole. fox news will have much more on this tomorrow on "fox news sunday" and on our coverage of the state of the union on tuesday. but tonight, the world on edge. first, paris, then belgium. dozens arrested following a foiled terror plot, and now a u.s. citizen charged with planning a terror attack on our capitol. is this just the beginning? joining me now, former jihadist and ex-counterterrorist operative, mubin sheikh. good evening. you grew up in canada. you became radicalized. you then radicalized others. you celebrated the 9/11 attack
then did a 18 o and worked for canadian counterintelligence. how did that come about? >> well, i was borned and raised in toronto, canada, lived a normal life. at 19 i took a trip to pakistan. i had a chance encounter with the taliban who basically convinced me the way to bring about political change was through jihad. i bought it. i came back and as you described i fell into the extremist circle and continued with it. >> and, but then you made a 180 and joined the canadian counterintelligence. why? >> i spent two years in syria studying arabic and islamic studies. you know, i spent time with a scholar who refutrefuted the extremist interpretation of these people. and with a newfound appreciation really for rights of muslims in the west and when i returned back i volunteered and basically became a walk-in for security intelligence. >> okay. what did you think of the terror attacks and what happened in
paris last week? >> well, you can basically categoriize them into three kins of attacks. i'm totally borrowing from clint watts', shout-out to clint watts. you'u're looking at inspired attacks. individuals who take the signs and the cues from extremist messages and go and do an attack. then you're looking at directed attacks, so you have a planner, brings people in, trains them, funds them, locates a target and sends them off to do the target. then you have networked individuals. so people from al qaeda joining forces with people from isis, joining forces with other militant groups. there are so many of them and they bring to bear their shared expertise. >> okay. so what you do is you categorize them at three levels, kind of the lone wolf then the sweeper then the bigger attack by a network where they basically share an ideology, even though they may not be from the same extremist jihadist group?
correct? >> yeah. we're hearing a lot about al qaeda and isis is in competition in iraq and syria and they very much are. of course, they could easily put aside their differences, go with the ideology, and strike a western target. >> okay. and you believe that america is next. how and why? >> well, i mean, every country that's been put on the list, that's basically a coalition partner in the bombing against isis, has been put on notice so to speak. the may 2013 issue of an extremist publication noted, put on their hit list of individuals related to the cartoons and subsequently isis spokesperson put out a claim or, you know, a call to attack coalition partners. america, canada, australia, and especially, quote/unquote, the filthy french. >> and, you know, when paris was attacked, i mean, you know, they now have 33 law enforcement or military personnel in paris and
they have -- they vow to continue in their attacks in the middle east. i mean, they don't seem to be frightened by this. how would that affect these jihadists? >> france has a long history in the muslim world, actually. they've been in north africa for a long time. day were in syria for a long time as the clone yolonial powe there. they're currently involved in operations still in north africa, in mali in particular. the attacks in mali and iraq were specifically mentioned by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula as the main reason for why they're doing this. i nch are going to suddenly reverse and pull a 180 and just withdraw, so the fight will continue. >> all right. and quickly, how do we stop this an can we stop it? you've been on both sides. >> it's going to get worse before it gets better. i'll say that much. there are soft approaches you
can take. community engagement. there are hard approaches you can take, increased law enforcement intelligence. the same thing that western powers have been doing but i don't see it getting better any time soon. >> all right. mubin shaikh, thanks so much for being with us this evening. all right. coming up, will all of us be prohibited from saying anything negative about islam?
islam. >> and here is what the father of one of the men killed in benghazi told me, then-secretary of state hillary clinton, said to him. >> she said, we are going to arrest the person that made that film and we're going to have him prosecuted. >> is self-censorship a reality? and is islam forcing us to self-censor? with me now is human rights lawyer, deborah weiss. all right. two days after the paris attack, a liberal newspaper in america posts a "charlie hebdo" cartoon of a jewish man pushing muhammad in a wheelchair. his face is blurred but not the jer jews. why is it okay to do that? is islam forcing us to self-censor already? >> yes, it is, judge jeanine. actually i suppose muslims could argue that the prophet muhammad
is their prophet and the jewish man is just a jew, but the fact is any time anybody shows any muslim or anything that's islam related in a negative light, they consider it defamation of religions -- the defamation of islam and it violates islamic blasphemy code, so we are self-cens self-censoring. >> when you look at it, not meant as criticism, virtually the reality today. virtually no one in the media reproduced the "charlie hebdo" cartoon that caused this terrorist attack, supposedly, in paris. >> that's true. and while here in america a lot of people will say that we should be sensitive or have responsible speech or politically correct speech, i think the truth is a lot of people are afraid and it's not juf the violence. they're afraid of frivolous lawsuits. they're afraid of having their reputation smeared. there are organizations like
council on american islamic relations that any time somebody says something about islam or muslims that they don't like, they have some kind of campaign to shut them up. >> you know, deborah, in 2006, i don't know if you remember this, but pope benedict xvi said something that was considered very negative and it was a cause of, you know, a lot of riots and arson. basically he said that muhammad, show me what muhammad brought that was new and you'll find things evil and inhuman such as the spread by the sword of their faith. then this week pope francis says that one cannot provoke those of faith and uses an example that if someone said a curse word about his mother that they should expect a punch. he said that was normal. is this pope blaming the victims? >> it certainly sounds that way, judge, doesn't it? it doesn't sound like a very christian response.
i don't know what happened to turn the other cheek, but what i can tell you is that if somebody says a curse word about your mother, you should absolutely not expect a punch in return. the way to address comments that you don't like is with more words and more conversation. not with violent actions. and in fact, that kind of remark by the pope feeds exactly into the islamist narrative that if you show a cartoon or make a comment or have a film that they find offensive, that they have every right to commit violence. i'm both disappointed and surprised that he made a comment like that. >> you know, it kind of reminds me of, you know, i had to beat my wife because she was nagging me, the words, or sufficient justification or provocation for an assault. the law does not recognize that. it seems the only limits to free speech to the united states supreme court are pornography, fighting words, riot, as well as obscenity. do you see a movement based on what has happened globally of the united states restricting
the free speech rights of americans to say anything about islam? >> well, fortunately at the time, we still have freedom of speech where a legal perspective. but certainly there is a push to self-censor and also to have censorship as a matter of policy. and under this administration, it's been particularly bad. as you might know, as a matter of policy, this administration has had the fbi, cia, state department, department of homeland security, and the national counterterrorism center completely purge from all its training material any mention of islamic terrorism or islamist ideology for fear of being islam-o-phobic. this is not only an infringement of the exercise of the human right to free expression, but it also poses a national security risk. >> certainly allegedly on some of those, but you know, i have this book, "the cartoons that
shook the world." it's supposedly about the danish newspaper that published the cartoons of muhammad and it's a whole discussion and not one cartoon in the book. deborah weiss, thanks for being with us. >> thank you for having me. up next, muslim leaders gather in texas for a stand with the prophet conference. one of the speakers joins me next. plus, ambassador bolten on why so few arab leaders are fightiibanez.
now back to "justice" with judge jeanine. just a week after the paris terror attacks muslim leaders from across america hold a conference in texas. their goal? to, quote, stand with the prophet muhammad and honor and respect. to combat what they call islam-o-phobes in america. with me, jacqueline backer, at the height of her career is one of europe's leading pop culture icons converted to islam. she is a speaker at the
conference. and rikel, an american muslim writer and activist who focuses on women's rights, democracy, and individual freedom. all right. good evening. christiane, you say the goal of the conference is to discuss the mercy, gentleness, and compassion of muhammad. if that's the case, why are people in paris killing in the name of allah? >> very good question, because they don't follow prophet muhammad's teaching. what they did is a crime against humanity that defies all islamic values and prophet muhammad's teaching. >> what is the purpose of the conference? >> the conference is "a" to celebrate prophet muhammad's life. he was born in this month, so it's a celebration of his life, his mercy, his teachings. and it is also to raise funds for a media response center in order so that muslims can respond in a professional manner
in the media when they're attacked in an islam-o-phobic bay way. there's a lot of -- unfortunately, islam-o-phobia is on the rise. we muslims instead of being radicalized we should be responding in a professional manner and that's why we're raising funds. >> you say instead of being radicalized. are you suggesting that there is a reason to be radicalized and you are then now, you know, going to bring in the professionals to speak on behalf of muslims? >> well, unfortunately, one of the consequences of islam-o-phobia and constant muslim bashing in the media is that youth gets radicalized. or they disengage, they leave their faith behind. so there is a problem, and the great sadness among, you know, the vast majority of the muslims. >> but it seems that the only people who are being bashed are the people who are being killed in the name of allah, that the bashing is going from a muslim toward the innocents as opposed
to the innocents toward the muslims. why don't you join in on this? what do you think the answer to that is? >> the answer to why you don't -- >> go ahead. >> the answer to my muslims are radicalized? >> yes. there was a suggestion that they're going to raise money so that they have professionals who can respond on behalf of muslims. >> right. >> in the media, yes. in the media. >> look, i think that a lot of the public discourse on islam is often on -- may i? thank you. i think that a lot of the discourse that happens to islam and muslims is not so helpful sometimes in the media and would be helpful to have muslims willing to speak out against the theo political ideology that we saw attack in paris. it would be very valuable to have dissident muslims have more airtime. i would hope that the conference focuses on how we as muslims can look inward and address radicalization problems within our own community including issues like the violence against
women, forced child marriage, and so forth. i'm not sure if it's part of the stated agenda. is it? >> christiane, is it? >> no, the conference is literally to celebrate the life of prophet muhammad and stand by prophet muhammad against terror and hate. >> but don't you think, christiane, that this -- the timing is not really terrific in light of the fact that, you know, what you've got is boko haram in nigeria and northern nigeria and in pakistan and you've got all these attacks -- >> but hang on a minute. yes, of course. but listen, these conferences were organized half a year ago, and what have they got to do with these terrorists acts? >> well, you're talking about islam-o-phobia, and so the muslims are victims here. aren't the victims the people being killed by muslims? >> yes, absolutely, but muslims get killed by these terrorists, too. don't forget, in the middle
east, hundreds of muslims get killed every day by isis. we have a problem in the world. we need to work on this together. >> wouldn't -- go ahead, raquel. >> thank you. if i may, then, recognizing the th theopolitical ideology that seeks the subjugation of every individual, including yourself and myself, christiane, is the exact thing that in this moment we should even if we plan something in advance, say, look, there is this issue that's on the world stage, we know that everyone is going to be looking at us at this point and look at who is at the table as well as who is not at the table at that conference. there is one female who is keynote speaking. that is yourself. i wonder about where the dissident american muslim women are. to speak to american muslim youth about this issue. >> i'm sorry you're misinformed, my friend. >> am i? i am not. i have internet access. >> christiane, are there other women -- >> let me tell you, i was there.
yes, i was just there. i just came from the conference. let me tell you what went on. one lady who is a community leader won an award. she was the only one who won an award. the presenter, the woman, in fact, the two presenters are women, and i was the keynote speaker as a woman. >> okay. let me ask you this. let me ask you this. there are reports a woman was stoned to death for adultery. is this allowed by your religion, christiane? >> is that allowed by what? >> your religion. >> that's -- >> yes or no? >> you know what, stoning to death comes actually from the bible. i don't know if you know about that, but it comes from the old testament. >> that's a -- >> raquel, what's your response to that? >> that's a cop-out response. >> stop, christiane. raquel? you can answer it, christiane. raquel? >> no, i'm not in favor of that. >> i'm not asking you, christiane. raquel, please respond. >> adultery -- >> christiane, i'm not talk to you.
>> adultery is punishable for man and woman. >> tgo ahead. >> regardless of whether or not it's punishable by men and women we have to own up to the fact, myself, for example, stoning, lashing, any kind of capital punishment for something like that is not something that i believe in. that's something that most muslims i know believe in. however, we have to acknowledge that there is a particular interpretation of our faith that believes in that. >> all right. >> we have to be at the front lines of fighting that. >> christiane, raquel, thanks so much for being with us. >> thank you for having me. the president on egypt called an the leaders of islam to eliminate the radical element, so with so many muslims killed by isis and violent jihadists, why won't leaders of the other arab leaders do the same? with me, john bolton. good evening, ambassador. why won't the other arab countries join in what seems to be a reasonable approach by president el sisi? >> in fact, what el sisi did was really quite courageous to make
a public statement that islam needed a revolution. he gave it at the university which is the center for islamic scholarship in cairo, and he coupled that with something i think is equally significant on the christmas eve service, he went to the main cathedral in cairo and wished the worshippers merry christmas. >> right. >> said we're all egyptians together. so like anwar sadaat going to jerusalem, it's a very, very amazing couple of things that el sisi has done and puts him in jeopardy. what we should hope is that other muslim leaders, particularly in the middle east, do follow his example, but it's open to question. >> ambassador, how does that put him in jeopardy? >> because he's now engaged in a battle with the muslim brotherhood in egypt to see whether there will be a possibility of a free and open society or whether the brotherhood, as it almost did,
will get control and impose its version of sharia law. and, you know, the muslim brotherhood coming back to sadaat after he made peace with israel who assassinated him. >> exactly. ambassador, i want you to listen to the difference between our president and british prime minister discussing extremism and what happened in paris. >> we're also going to keep working together on strategies to counter violent extremism. >> we do face a very serious islamist extremist terrorist threat in europe, in america, across the world. >> what do you think? >> well, i think the president has rejected the idea that there's a war on terrorism to begin with, and going back to his cairo speech, which was also co-sponsored by al azar university in 2009, he mistakenly believes that if you call it islamic terrorism, you'll be insulting muslims around the world.
he should really talk to president el sisi. >> right. >> who is even -- your former guest recognized muslims are, perhaps, the principle victims of islamic terrorism. i don't think they would view themselves as being insulted by the president telling the truth about what the reality is. >> all right. given the recent attacks by so many of the radicalized muslims, what is the problem with identifying the enemy? i know -- these are the facts. you can go on and on, whether it's al qaeda in the peninsula, or sha rria or boko haram. who are we talking about? who has done all the attacks other than the islamic extremi t extremists? does that make you angry? >> it does. you know, i think what it shows is not only president obama's world view wrong, his whole approach is patronizing to muslims. >> yep. >> and i think it inhibits our
ability to talk honestly about how to deal with the problem because i think these extremists who are religious fanatics and let's just say it plainly, every religion has religious fanatics. if you can't talk about them as islamic extremists and understand the ideology we're facing, you can't have an effective counterstrategy to it. >> you know, we talked about that. it seems that we're not just winning. ambassador john bolton, thanks for being with us again. >> thank you, jeanine. >> all right. coming up, apparently joining a terrorist group is not enough of a reason to lose u.s. citizenship.
what have we learned from the paris attacks? is it time to revoke the citizenship of americans who join terrorist organizations? with me now, chief counsel at the american center for law and justice and author of "the new york times" bestseller "rise of isis." good evening, jay. let me get this straight. the united states -- >> sure, justice. >> -- does not revoke the citizenship for those who join a terrorist group like al qaeda. how is that even possible? >> because the law, as it exists on citizenship revocation, says if you join a foreign state, you could be subject to revocation of citizenship. and, of course, isis and al qaeda are not deemed foreign states. now, the fact of the matter is the law has not caught up with the nature of the war we're engaged in. as it stands right now, there is if you will a legal loophole and
that legal loophole says if you've joined an enemy that's not a foreign state, you can't have a revocation of citizenship. >> okay. >> the law has to change. >> jay, you said something that triggered in my mind, you said the law has not kept up with what's going on with this fight. as i recall, 2001 is when al qaeda hit the world trade center. how many years does it take us to pass a law like this? >> it should not have taken long at all. immediately in the aftermath of 9/11, we didn't have the rise of these groups where u.s. citizens were joining. now, that, though, should have been the chance -- look, we had the patriot act after 9 sl/11, national security issues going through. ha has happened, we now have -- it's part of a new phenomenon. that is isis has really gone after recruiting people from the west, whether it's the united states, whether it's in great britain or france. and nationals from countries like ours going over, fighting with these groups, being trained then coming back to the united states. so two things really need to happen. one, we have to have the ability
to revoke citizenship when they join these groups. sure, you can have due process proceedings but have to have the ability to revoke the citizenship and second, i think equally important here, passport control which this secretary of state and this president . >> okay. so to revehicle volk citizenship, what -- we need to change the law. but what would the grounsds be? simply joining a gun like al qaeda? and not a due process hearing. >> insert into the existing law under the immigration naturalization acts, under those laws, you would just insert where it says foreign state, you would up cert, or designated terrorist group because we have a process where we designate various groups as terrorist organizations. so it's really a couple of words. >> couple of words. >> change the law. yeah. that's really all it is. >> and then we can deport these people even though they are citizens after a hearing. >> well, yeah. you could also stop them from coming back in, which needs to
be phase two of this. >> right. >> so if they are in syria, they stay in syria. if they are fighting in iraq, they stay in iraq. >> all right. and jay, quickly, why isn't there the will to stop the passports? >> because the president has a narrative judge, and that narrative that you don't target a particular group even though the enemy is a particular group. and the president, as you have been saying so eloquently on this broadcast won't even call it laumic jihadism or islamic terrorism. >> and that's what it's the. up next, liam
paris terror attacks action movie star liam neeson made this shocking statement, quote, there is too many f'ing guns out there in america. i think the population is 320 million, there is over 300 million guns, privately owned in america. i think it's an f'ing disgrace. i as a proud gun owner then went out on the streets of new york to finds out what you think of neeson's comments. take a look. what do you think of the fact that this guy who is promoting all of these action kill them up shoot them up shows is, is now saying that americans have too many guns and we shouldn't have any guns at all? >> it's interesting that he makes an awful lot of money playing a guy that toets a gun and promotes violence. >> would you say that's hypocritical? >> certainly. i think he is an okay guy. i think sometimes the actors need to keep their mouths closed. >> i think he has a right to say whatever he wants to say.
absolutely. >> do you think it's hypocritical to do three movies all about shooting them up then saying you americans shouldn't have guns. >> no. it's just a movie. >> everyone knows liam neeson as this bad ass action star taking out everybody with a gun or his hands. you know, for him to be bad-mouthing something like that or even any type of action star, it's just wrong. >> especially a guy who has this particular set of skills? >> i don't know who you are. i don't know what you want. what i do have are a very particular set of skills. i will look for you. i will find you. and i will kill you. >> he will find us. >> he probably will. thanks a lot. >> and that's it for us tonight. and remember, you don't ever have to miss justice. just set your dvr and tell your friends to do the same.
g to "the factor." remember the spin stops here cause we're looking out for you. welcome to a "the kelly file" special everybody. taking on terror is the name of this evening. i'm martha maccallum in more megyn kelly. in the aftermath of jihadists going on a terror rampage in paris and with the threat of similar attacks looming large here in the united states, there's one key question that's gone largely unanswered. what is america's strategy for fighting all of this? [ inaudible ] >> chilling words after the killings in paris focusing at